Confused

[PeakedinthePeaks]

Hi, I'm new to all the current debates around feminism and feminism itself and have lurked a lot and posted a little.
I'm confused over a conversation I had with a colleague last week discussing self ID and the concerns women are raising. Is it possible to be a feminist and have no issue with all inclusive toilets and changing rooms and to believe that trans women are women? I didn't think so but like I said, I'm new to the subject and realise the answers are probably in other posts somewhere but couldn't find a title to match my question.
I am very uncomfortable with all inclusive toilets and have been following GRA discussions.
Can you be a feminist and support the GRA?

Personally I don't believe in all inclusive toilets and changing rooms, and I think most, if not all MNs feel the same. Potentially they will be very dangerous to women and girls. We have to resist this trendy nonsense.

Of course it's possible to be a feminist and not agree with the commonly held views on here. This letter by feminists after the London Pride protest demonstrates that.

solidaritystatement650530505.wordpress.com/

Hi! Welcome!

Depends on how you define ‘Feminism’!

Round here we mostly (but not exclusively) go with a definition based on the ‘second wave’ of feminism which is something like ‘advocacy for the liberation of women and girls worldwide’ rather the newer ‘equality for all’ type definition which is more properly described as ‘Egalitarianism’ in my opinion).

Feminism isn’t a political party though, just a bunch of shared ideas and common actions so there is no absolute definition.

This thread is a great place to start re: why self ID and feminism aren’t compatible.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

Lots of women whether they say they are feminists or not are uncomfortable at the idea of mixed sex communal changing, showering, prisons, hospital wards and so on.

Most women in the world I am sure, if anyone actually asked, would say no we do not want men in these places.

Of course nobody has asked.

Yes of course. The feminism on this board is mainly radical feminism (rad fem) and very resistant to accepting TWAW.

The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify.

Not a theorist myself, nor would I have called myself a 'feminist' ten years ago.
However from my perspective, unisex toilets (changing rooms, boardrooms) would be fine if everyone had the same strength, power, self-confidence etc (pick your word - I understand the preferred word by second-wave is power). So maybe in Ally McBeal's legal offices, but even then, bullying did occur there!

Not so fine where there are structural differences, which is reality, I'm afraid.
We would love to think we are 'equal' to men, as teenagers I'm sure we would have loved to think we were 'equal' to adults. Unfortunately that is not the case. I think now (from the height of lived experience as a middle-aged, middle-class, white, well educated mother) that policy must be made based on reality, not on wishful thinking, and based on the reality of those who have fewer possibilities to 'just move to another toilet/space/refuge...', not the reality of those of us who can afford to shrug off / ignore / pretend those imbalances of power do not exist even for us.

Of course it's possible to be a feminist and not subscribe to the majority view on here. Rad fems are just one group of people and their views are not shared by all.

I'm with Dakinis.
"The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify."

Dakinis

How will you know if you have equality of the sexes if you can't distinguish between the sexes?

The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify.

Really? What do you think about being forced to share intimate spaces with people like Karen White or Jessica Winfield?
Does it fill you with a warm cosy glow of virtue? Or are you just relying on the public not being aware that these rapists with fully intact male genitals are being moved to women's prisons.

Naw, the vast majority of feminists know that gender is an instrument of structural oppression.

🤓

When current implementation of trans rights sees sexually violent men lawfully housed in women's prisons, I struggle to see how someone can embrace the current legal status quo, seek to further it and still call themselves a feminist.

The idea fro example that it will be a great advance for women if parliament is 50% men and 50% transwomen.

Because that's 50/50 and equal female representation in parliament has been achieved.

Awesome.

The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify

It's very easy to nake these kinds of statements. I think many people are very sympathetic with trans people on the basis they think they are a very small minority of people struggling hugely with dysphoria. Once you explain self-id, which is that any man can identify as a woman with no checks and balances then the evidence is that people suddenly change their minds in some way about 'trans people'. Trans can mean anything and everything these days, including kinks and fetishes.

Yes some feminists believe twaw. They tend to be young, lib fems who haven't much experience of the worst of sexism.

That thing about the 40+ year old man with a tutu fetish joining a ballet class for little girls was grotequse.

Age is just a number, right?

Sidetrack I've just had it fucking up to here with this shit.

Feminism is about achieving parity of power and control over our lives as members of the sex caste that is female, everywhere in our world.

To admit males as members of the female sex caste negates the existence of the female sex caste as a distinct entity.

So, no feminist can ever support the Legal Fiction that says a male can become a female, since to do so is to support the erasure of the female sex caste.

Yes, lots of feminists are in favour of self ID. Loads of different theories and ways of viewing the world that come under feminism.

PenguinSaidEverything Except that those females are not feminists in any way. They do not centre females in their politics.

PenguinSaidEverything

Can you explain how self id would benefit women? I can only see negatives for women, so if you are a feminist who is in favour of it, I assume you can see some clear benefits for women if any man is permitted to have a legal status of female.

I cannot see how it benefits women if men are allowed to declare themselves female and gain access to women's sporting events, women's changing rooms, women's prisons, all-women shortlists and so on. Can you explain this to me, please?

The core of feminism is centring females, both women and girls. So in any scenario the questions to ask are how will this impact women and girls and will this be beneficial in any way to women and girls?

All analysis I've done around gender ideology has come up with very clear negatives for women and girls. So in my opinion it's not compatible with the core of feminism.

What do you think OP, if I reframe your question thus:

Is it possible to be a feminist and to find it acceptable to disregard the boundaries and consent of many women with respect to their bodily autonomy and dignity?

If other women refuse their consent to share intimate spaces with men, be touched by men in intimate medical examinations or security pat downs, share overnight accommodation with men in hospital wards, be supplanted by men in female held roles, sporting events and quotas for colleges etc...

Is it feminist to say, tough, I'm fine with it, so I overrule your consent?

Is it feminist to stand by as thousands, even millions of women and girls self exclude, or are excluded from participation in society because the female rights they were once entitled to have been dismantled?

My opinion is no.

Your mileage may vary.

How will you know if you have equality of the sexes if you can't distinguish between the sexes?

OldCrone the clue is in the word 'equality' - the focus being on treating males and females equally.

When it comes to single sex provisions, most feminists I know take the sensible approach which is to assess each rare occurrence on a case by case basis. And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males, as is so often suggested on here.

Once again, if you can't actually be honest about who is male and who is female and what those words mean, you aren't able to treat them equally.

You can't treat two unknown, indefinable and immeasurable concepts equally.

Anyone can identify as a feminst, it’s a free country. Depends I suppose on working out what you see ‘feminist’ as meaning.

If you see it as about the equality of the sexes – well for a start, if you’re pro mixed gender bathrooms you already have an interesting conflict in your feminism, since this pro position ignores the issues this presents around safeguarding, the massive issues of women who have been abused, raped and assaulted and are highly distressed at the idea of sharing private spaces of undress with male bodies, and women whose culture and religion will mean not being able to enter any gender neutral or ‘inclusive’ toilet or changing room. Those are all pretty massive issues of equality, inclusion and the specific difficulties facing (only) the female sex that feminism should be considering.

If you’re ok with mixed sex inclusion in things like Girl Guides you have another issue there, as you’re agreeing that female born people shouldn’t have the right to meet and have any provision apart from male born people, and that there is no impact on female born people and their opportunities and even how they talk and play and interact as children, if male bodied children are present. Huge issues specific to females.

Other whacking female body issues: pregnancy, periods, FGM, 98% of sexual assaults being committed by men, needing to share prison provision with convicted rapists and paedophiles – if you’re identifying as feminism being the equality and rights of women those things probably ought to be of interest you. Otherwise your feminism runs the risk of actually being about suppressing the voices and the vulnerable groups of female born people to please and pacify male born people, some of whom have used the word ‘feminism’ to colonise and shift the focus away from women from inside, and encourage other women to believe that focusing on women's bodies, women's rights and women's equality is somehow selfish and wrong.
Female socialisation: another big feminist issue.

As pp says, YMMV. Depends on what you see 'feminism' as being.

And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males, as is so often suggested on here.

That is exactly what it means. If you support it, own it and be honest about it.

Those occurrences seem to be getting less and less rare don't they Dakinis? We seem to be averaging about one per week (that we know about) at the moment.